Fun-damentalism

According to a November report from the Seattle Center
Century
21 Committee—which is tasked with revamping and rebuilding the
Seattle Center—Fun Forest needs to go.

Noting declining revenues and flagging attendance at the dilapidated
amusement park, Century 21 has recommended that the five-acre property
“be replaced… with a mix of outdoor active and passive uses, geared
to all ages.”

If that recommendation sounds vague, it is. While Century 21 seems
to know what it doesn’t want—a financially insolvent, antiquated
amusement park—the committee seems unsure what it does want. Of the four options the committee has put forth for the Center,
some call for the demolition of the Fun Forest—whose lease ends
in 2009—and some don’t. The city has also been struggling to find
a new home for the Center’s SeaSk8 skatepark, which was demolished in
January 2007.

Roller-coaster enthusiast John Sutherland—a former ski-school
director, resort manager, and University of Washington
administrator—has been trying for nearly 10 years to bring a new
amusement park to the Northwest. In 1999, Sutherland worked on a $100
million theme-park development in Lakewood, which ultimately fell apart
due to a disagreement over taxes on the park’s construction. Now he
wants to breathe new life into the Fun Forest by bringing in new rides,
new crowds, and $18 million worth of private investment over the next
two years. Sutherland—who once held a Guinness World Record for
riding 40 roller coasters in 24 hours—has brought in a team of
designers, merchandisers, and investors (mostly former Six Flags
executives, he says) to completely rethink, or at least retool, Fun
Forest. But while Sutherland and his group have been pushing on the
city for over a year, Seattle’s notoriously slow-going bureaucratic
process has kept things from moving forward, and Sutherland is ready to
pack it up and look for a new site for his amusement park.

Since Fun Forest first appeared at the 1962 World’s Fair, the park
has had its ups and downs. In the mid-1980s, Disney came in looking to
redevelop the park, but the plan ultimately fell apart. Plans to move
the park to an old Metro bus barn were batted around for a few years,
again to no avail. And in 2006, a poll by the Center found that less

than 3 percent of the Center’s visitors “enjoyed” the Fun Forest.
Finally, in December 2007, after Fun Forest’s operator, the Aubin
family, fell behind on its rent for the second year in a row, the
Seattle City Council cut the cord.

Sutherland says he asked about picking up the lease, but was met
with silence from Center and city officials. “All I needed was the
letter and the nod from the city,” he says. “I’ve not heard from the
council or the mayor’s office.”

Sutherland’s proposal—tentatively named “The Thrillway,” a
reference to the Fun Forest’s original moniker, “The
Gayway”—shares some similarities with the old Fun Forest. It
would still be filled with rides with names like “Disko,” “Discovery,”
“Mega Drop,” and the “Spinning Wild Mouse,” but Sutherland wants to
take things a step further. Sutherland’s vision for the park integrates
the rides with the landscape. He says he envisions a “world-class
roller coaster” that would circle the park, ultimately dropping down
over the Center’s monorail tracks as a way to incorporate the ride into
the Center’s landscape.

Sutherland’s vision extends beyond the Fun Forest property. He
believes that incorporating family areas and water features into the
park—much like what the Century 21 Committee has
discussed—will make the park more accessible and inviting. And he
says he’d like to demolish the arcade pavilion near the Pacific Science
Center and give it back to the Center to be used as green space.
Sutherland also wants a skatepark smack in the middle of the Thrillway,
with the hopes of drawing in more families. “[We want to] bring the
locals back,” he says. “The marketing budget we’ve put together is
bigger than the [marketing] budget for the whole Center. Except for the
skatepark, this [project would all be] at our expense.”

Indeed, if Sutherland’s project was approved, the park would be
privately funded. The skatepark would still be funded by the city, but
it seems unlikely that a park in the former Fun Forest area would cost
nearly as much as the estimated $2.3 million needed for the city’s
preferred skatepark plan, which would require the demolition of one of
the Center’s pavilions. The cheaper location in Fun Forest also has the
support of the Seattle Parks Department’s Skate Park Advisory
Committee, which has been involved in the current SeaSk8 relocation
process. Skaters also support Sutherland’s plan. “We are looking for
the best site available, and the best site would include one that
doesn’t displace current users,” says SPAC chair Ryan Barth.
Additionally, Barth says, “[Sutherland] understood we were looking for
10,000 square feet [for the skatepark]. With that understanding, I
think that spot would be better for the [skatepark].”

So far, the Center hasn’t shown much interest in Sutherland’s
proposal. “There are so many different types of things that could go in
that space,” says Seattle Center director Robert Nellams. “The Century
21 Committee decided it was too soon… to re-create an amusement park
there, although there may be an opportunity to preserve some rides.”
Nellams says that while he’s seen “some good things” in Sutherland’s
proposal, a new amusement park at the Center may not make fiscal sense.
Nellams points to the financial struggles of big companies like Disney
and Six Flags as a possible indicator of the future of theme parks.
“The reality is, we have to look at how people are using things,”
Nellams says. “Fun Forest is losing momentum. People are voting with
their feet and their pocketbooks.”